Lexicographic entries

ἦς, ἦσθα, ἦσθας
(Phryn. Ecl. 118, Moer. η 4)

A. Main sources

(1) Phryn. Ecl. 118: ἦς ἐν ἀγορᾷ σόλοικον, λέγε οὖν ἦσθα. ὀρθότερον δὲ χρῷτο ἂν ὁ λέγων ‘ἐὰν ᾖς ἐν ἀγορᾷ’.

ἦς ἐν ἀγορᾷ (‘you were in the marketplace’) [is] a solecism, so say ἦσθα (‘you were’). One would use it more correctly by saying ‘if you were (ᾖς) in the marketplace’.

(2) Moer. η 4: ἦσθα Ἀττικοί· ἦς Ἕλληνες.

Users of Attic [employ] ἦσθα; users of Greek [employ] ἦς.

B. Other erudite sources

(1) (Ps.-?)Trypho Pass. 1.19: προσχηματισμὸς δέ ἐστι προσθήκη συλλαβῆς κατὰ τὸ τέλος· ἔστι δὲ τῶν τεσσάρων διαλέκτων ἴδιος, οἷον πολέμοις πολέμοισι, τοῖς τοῖσι, φίλοις φίλοισι, ὄνεια ὀνείατα, πρόσωπα προσώπατα, ἐγώ ἐγώνη, τύ τύνη, ἦς ἦσθα.

The προσχηματισμός (lit. ‘protrusion’) is the addition of a syllable at the end [of a word]: it is proper to the four dialects, as in πολέμοις πολέμοισι (‘wars’, dat. pl.), τοῖς τοῖσι (article, dat. masc.-neut. pl.), φίλοις φίλοισι (‘friends’, dat. pl.), ὄνεια ὀνείατα (‘victuals’, nom.-acc. neut. pl.), πρόσωπα προσώπατα (‘persons’, nom.-acc. neut. pl.), ἐγώ ἐγώνη (‘I’), τύ τύνη (‘thou’), ἦς ἦσθα (‘you were’).

(2) Hdn. Περὶ μονήρους λέξεως GG 3,2.950.10–3: οἶσθα. ὅσα εἰς θα λήγει δεύτερα πρόσωπα ἐπεκτεταμένα, ταῦτα ἀποβολῇ τῆς θα συλλαβῆς καταλείπει ῥητὸν τὸ ῥῆμα, οἷον λέγῃσθα λέγῃς, βάλῃσθα βάλῃς, ἦσθα ἦς. μόνον δὲ τὸ οἶσθα τοιοῦτον οὐκ ἀνεδέξατο. αἴτιον δὲ τὸ πάθος.

Lentz argued that the modification (πάθος) alluded to at the end is the syncope leading from an alleged pre-form εἴδησθα or οἴδησθα to οἶσθα. Egenolff (1901, 290), by comparing Choerob. in Theodos. GG 4,1.111.2–5 (= 341.2–4), Epim.Hom. in Il. 1.85D Dyck, and EM 618.50–8, further argued that Herodian derived οἴδησθα from a hypothetical Aeolic form οἴδης by the same addition of -θα seen in ἦς > ἦσθα; see also Papazeti (2008, 256–7).

οἶσθα (‘you know’). Those extended second persons ending in θα yield an existing verbal form if the syllable θα is removed, e.g. λέγῃσθα λέγῃς (‘say’, pres. subj. act., 2nd pers. sing.), βάλῃσθα βάλῃς (‘throw’, pres. subj. act., 2nd pers. sing.), ἦσθα ἦς (‘you were’). Only οἶσθα did not admit of such a thing. The cause [of this is] the change.

(3) Herenn.Phil. η 87 (= [Ammon.] 220): ᾖς, ἦσθα, φησίν, διαφέρει παρὰ το[ῖς] Ἀττικοῖς. τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἦσθα τὸν παρῳχημένον χρόνον δηλοῖ, τὸ δὲ ᾖς τὸν μέλλοντα. ὁ γοῦν Ἕκτωρ φησίν· ‘Δηΐφοβ’, ἦ μέν μοι τὸ πάρος πολὺ φίλτατος ἦσθα’. καὶ Μένανδρος ἐν Κόλακι ‘ἄνθρωπε, πέρυσι νεκρὸς ἦσθα καὶ πτωχός, | νυν<ὶ> δὲ πλουτεῖς’. ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ ᾖς πάλιν Μένανδρος ἐν Ψευδηρακλεῖ ‘ὑπὲρ μὲν οἴνου μηδὲ γρύ, τίτθη, λέγε, | ἂν τἆλλα δ’ ᾖς ἄμεμπτο[ς], ἕκτην ἐπὶ δέκα | Βοηδρομιῶνος ἐνδελεχῶς ἕξεις ἀεί’. καὶ καθόλου πάντα οὕτως λέγεται ἐπὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος καὶ κατὰ τὴν <ἡμ>ετέραν συνήθειαν, οἷον ‘ἐὰν νοῇς· ἐὰν λαλῇς· ἐὰν ᾖς ἀγαθός’. ὁ γοῦν λέγων πρός τινα ‘ᾖς ποτε πλούσιος’, ἀγνοήσει τὴν διαφοράν· δέον γὰρ ἦν φάναι ‘ἦσθα’.

Cf. Herenn.Phil. Propr. 21; Et.Gud. 249.17–20 | Herenn.Phil. has ἦς throughout this entry : Palmieri corrected it to ᾖς on the basis of Propr. 21 | ᾖς – Ἀττικοῖς Herenn.Phil. : ᾖς καὶ ἦσθα καὶ ἦ διαφέρει [Ammon.] | φησίν functions in Herennius as an impersonal form (see Palmieri 1988, 82–3) | [Ammon.] lacks the quotation from Men. Col. 49–50 | γρύ [Ammon.] : γάρ Herenn.Phil. | ἕξεις [Ammon.] : ἑξῆς Herenn.Phil. : ἄξεις Cobet, followed by Kassel and Austin.

ᾖς and ἦσθα, it is said, are different for users of Attic. For ἦσθα signifies the past tense, ᾖς the future (i.e. the subjunctive). Hector, at any rate, says (Hom. Il. 22.233): ‘Deiphobus, in the past you were (ἦσθα) certainly by far the dearest to me’. And Menander in the Flatterer (49–50) [says]: ‘Man, last year you were (ἦσθα) dead and poor, and now you’re rich’. And with regard to ᾖς, Menander again [says] in the Fake Heracles (fr. 412): ‘Speak over wine, and not a small portion, nurse, and you would be (ᾖς) blameless, and you will always have a perpetual 16th of Boedromion’. And in general all forms referring to the future (i.e. the subjunctive) are used in this way even in our common usage, for instance, ‘if you know, if you speak, if you are (ᾖς) good’. And certainly he who says to someone ‘you were (ᾖς) once rich’ will ignore the difference, for he should have said ‘ἦσθα’.

(4) Hsch. η 884 (= Cyr. (vgAS) ησθ 1/7): *ἦσθα· ἦς, ὑπῆρχες.

Cf. Σ η 123, Phot. η 273, Su. η 586, schol. Batr. 95.4 Ludwich | ὑπῆρχες is omitted by codd. ABD of the Synagoge | Su. η 586 adds the quote (Antiphil. AP 6.199.3–4) ἦσθα γὰρ εὐχωλῇσι κατήκοος, ἔνθα (: ἦσθα AP) κελεύθοις ἵλαος (‘for you were hearkening to his prayers, there [: you were APb] propitious to his paths’).

ἦσθα: You were.

(5) Et.Gen. AB s.v. ἦσθα: ἦσθα· ὅτε μέν ἐστιν ὑποτακτικὸν καὶ σημαίνει τὸ ὑπάρχω, σὺν τῷ ι γράφεται, ὅτε δέ ἐστιν ὁριστικόν, οὐ προσγράφεται τὸ ι. ὅτε δὲ πάλιν λαμβάνεται ἀντὶ τοῦ ᾔδεισθα, ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾔδειν ὑπερσυντελίκου, οἷον ᾔδειν, ᾔδεις, ᾔδει καὶ κατ’ ἐπέκτασιν τῆς θα συλλαβῆς ᾔδεισθα καὶ κατὰ συγκοπὴν ᾖσθα, γράφεται μετὰ τοῦ ι· Εὐριπίδης Πηλεῖ· ‘πάρεσμεν ἀλλ’ οὐκ †ᾖσθ’ ἂν οὐ† παρόντα με’. Ὦρος ὁ Μειλήσιος.

Cf. EM 431.35–41 (= Hdn. Περὶ ὀρθογραφίας GG 3,2.519.1–4), [Zonar.] 1099.11–3 | Alpers (1981, 225–6) reconstructed Orus fr. B 77 on the basis of this entry and of other sources transmitting Orus’ doctrine on the orthography of the pluperfect of οἶδα, assuming that Orus relied on his own Collection of Attic Words, as well as on previous scholarship | After οὐ προσγράφεται τὸ ι, EM adds οἷον, ‘χθὲς ἦσθα θεατρικός’ (‘as in ‘Yesterday you were theatrical’ [Gr.Naz. MPG 36.617.14]’) | The correct reading of Euripides’ fragment, as recognised by Wolff (1846), is ᾐσθάνου ‘you took notice’. I retain the corrupt wording ᾖσθ’ ἂν οὐ in the text since, according to Alpers (1981, 105–6 n. 24), the erroneous segmentation is due to Orus himself, who misread his own notes when compiling the Orthography and took the Euripidean line as an attestation of ᾖσθα ‘you knew’. Alpers argues that such a mistake could hardly be due to an earlier source of Orus, e.g. Herodian.

ἦσθα: When it is in the subjunctive and means ‘to be’, it is written with an ι, but when it is in the indicative, the ι subscript is not written. But again, when it is used instead of ᾔδεισθα (‘you knew’), from the pluperfect ᾔδειν (‘I knew’), as in ᾔδειν, ᾔδεις, ᾔδει, and by addition of the syllable θα [it becomes] ᾔδεισθα, and by syncope [it becomes] ᾖσθα, it is written with an ι; Euripides in the Peleus (fr. 622) [says]: ‘We are here, but you †would not have known (ᾖσθ(α)) that I am not† present’. Orus of Miletus.

(6) Eust. in Od. 2.90.9–14: τὸ δὲ ‘οἶσθα γὰρ οἷος θυμὸς’, ἐλέγχει Ζηνόδοτον καὶ τοὺς κατ’ αὐτὸν, κακῶς γράφοντας τὸ οἶσθας παρὰ τῷ ποιητῇ. ἐν τέλει μὲν γὰρ στίχου ἢ καὶ ἐπιφορᾷ φωνήεντος εἴη ἂν γενέσθαι συγχωρηθεῖσαν τοιαύτην γραφήν. ἐνταῦθα δὲ οὐκ ἂν γένοιτο διὰ τὸ κακομέτρητον. Αἴλιος μέντοι Διονύσιος, γράφει ὅτι καὶ τὸ οἶσθα καὶ τὸ οἶσθας ἄμφω Ἑλληνικὰ, καθὰ καὶ ἦσθα καὶ ἦσθας. ἅπαξ δέ, φασι, παρ’ Ὁμήρῳ τὸ οἶδας ἐν τῷ, ‘πολλὰ γὰρ ἄλλα βροτῶν θελκτήρια οἶδας’.

And the [verse] οἶσθα γὰρ οἷος θυμὸς (‘For you know what sort of spirit’, Hom. Od. 15.20) refutes Zenodotus and his followers, who wrongly write οἶσθας in the poet (i.e., Homer). For at the end of a line, or before a vowel, it would be possible to admit such a spelling; but it would not have happened here, because it would have been unmetrical. Yet Aelius Dionysius (cf. Ael.Dion. ο 11Ael.Dion. ο 11) writes that both οἶσθα (‘you know’) and οἶσθας are (correct) Greek, as are ἦσθα and ἦσθας. But οἶδας [is found] once in Homer, they say, in the [verse] ‘For many other things you know (οἶδας) to charm mortals’ (Hom. Od. 1.337).

(7) Schol. (Tz.) Ar. Pl. 833b.7–16: ᾖσθ’ ἄθλιος: ἦς καὶ ὑπῆρχες ἐλεεινός· ἀθέλιός τις ὢν ὁ λυπηρὰ καὶ ἀθελῆ καρτερῶν καὶ ὑπομένων· οὐ γὰρ ἐκ τοῦ ‘ἀθλῶ’ τοῦτο φαίην. ‘ᾖσθα’ δὲ προσγράψεις, ὅτι δεύτερον πρόσωπόν ἐστι, καὶ ὀφείλει δίφθογγον γράφεσθαι· ‘ὦ’, τὸ δεύτερον ‘εἶς’ καὶ ἰωνικῶς ‘ἔης’· ἦς καὶ ὑπῆρχες Ἀττικῶς ὁμοῦ καὶ Δωρικῶς.

ᾖσθ’ ἄθλιος: ‘You were (ἦς, ὑπῆρχες) miserable’: ἀθέλιος being one who endures painful and undesirable (ἀθελῆ) things; for I would not say that this [form comes] from ἀθλῶ (‘to struggle’). And you shall write ᾖσθα with an iota subscript, because it is a second person, and it should be written with a diphthong: ὦ (‘I am’), second person εἶς (‘you are’) and in Ionic ἔης. [It means] ‘you were’ in both Attic and Doric.

(8) Thom.Mag. 170.10–5: ἦσθα οὐκ ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑπάρχεις, ἀλλ’ ἀντὶ τοῦ ὑπῆρχες. Σοφοκλῆς· ‘οὐκ ἂν ἦσθα λυπηρὰ κλύειν’. καὶ ἁπλῶς πάντες οἱ δοκιμώτατοι ἐπὶ παρῳχημένου τοῦτο λέγουσιν, ὥστε οἱ ἀντὶ ἐνεστῶτος χρώμενοι ἁμαρτάνουσι.

ἦσθα [should be employed] not in place of ‘you are’, but in place of ‘you were’. Sophocles (El. 557 = C.3) [says]: ‘It would not have been (ἦσθα) painful to listen to you’. And absolutely all the most approved [authors] use this [form] for the past tense, so that those who use it for the present are mistaken.

C. Loci classici, other relevant texts

(1) Hom. Il. 5.897–8:
εἰ δέ τευ ἐξ ἄλλου γε θεῶν γένευ ὧδ᾿ ἀίδηλος,
καί κεν δὴ πάλαι ἦσθα ἐνέρτερος Οὐρανιώνων.

ἦσθα most codd. : ἦσθας codd. ZADRG.

But if you had been born so destructive of any other god, then long before this you would have been lower than the heavenly gods. (Transl. Murray, Wyatt 1924, 273).

(2) Anacr. fr. 22 PMG:
σὺ γὰρ ἦς ἔμοι-
γ’ ἀστεμφής.

ἦς is transmitted by schol. (Ariston.) Hom. Il. 3.219a : Bergk corrected it to εἰς ‘you are’ : Page suggested an imperfect ἔ͜ας.

For you were inflexible towards me.

(3) Soph. El. 556–7:
καὶ μὴν ἐφίημ᾿· εἰ δέ μ᾿ ὧδ᾿ ἀεὶ λόγους
ἐξῆρχες, οὐκ ἂν ἦσθα λυπηρὰ κλύειν.

Well, I allow you! If you had always begun your speeches in such a manner, you would not have been painful to listen to. (Transl. Llyod-Jones 1994, 217).

(4) X. Mem. 1.2.46: εἴθε σοι, ὦ Περίκλεις, τότε συνεγενόμην ὅτε δεινότατος ἑαυτοῦ ταῦτα ἦσθα.

If only, O Pericles, I had known you when you were at your cleverest in these matters!

(5) Erinn. AP 6.352 (= F7 Neri):
ἐξ ἀταλᾶν χειρῶν τάδε γράμματα· λῷστε Προμαθεῦ,
ἔντι καὶ ἄνθρωποι τὶν ὁμαλοὶ σοφίαν·
ταύταν γοῦν ἐτύμως τὰν παρθένον ὅστις ἔγραψεν,
αἰ καὐδὰν ποτέθηκ’, ἦς κ’ Ἀγαθαρχὶς ὅλα.

This picture is the work of delicate hands. Good Prometheus, there are men whose skill is equal to yours. At least if whoever drew this girl so truly had added also her voice, you would be the complete Agatharchis. (Transl. Männlein-Robert 2007, 255).

(6) Men. Epit. 373:
πονηρὸς ἦσθας.

You were a villain.

(7) Men. Sic. 129:
οὗ δοκεῖς οὐκ ἦσ]θας ὑός, ὡς ἔοικεν.

οὗ δοκεῖς οὐκ Sandbach : οὐ γὰρ αὐτῆς others | ἦσ]θας is reconstructed by several editors.

You were not the son of whom you think, it seems.

(8) LXX Id. 11.35: καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς εἶδεν αὐτὴν αὐτός, διέρρηξεν τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν Ἆ ἆ, θυγάτηρ μου, ταραχῇ ἐτάραξάς με, καὶ σὺ ἦς ἐν τῷ ταράχῳ μου, καὶ ἐγώ εἰμι ἤνοιξα κατὰ σοῦ τὸ στόμα μου πρὸς κύριον καὶ οὐ δυνήσομαι ἐπιστρέψαι.

And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he tore his clothes and said: ‘Alas, my daughter! you have troubled me with confusion, and you were one of those who troubled me: for I have opened my mouth against you to the Lord, and I cannot go back’.

(9) [Pl.] Ax. 365d.7–e.2: ὡς οὖν ἐπὶ τῆς Δράκοντος ἢ Κλεισθένους πολιτείας οὐδὲν περὶ σὲ κακὸν ἦν – ἀρχὴν γὰρ οὐκ ἦς, περὶ ὃν ἂν ἦν – οὕτως οὐδὲ μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν γενήσεται· σὺ γὰρ οὐκ ἔσῃ περὶ ὃν ἔσται.

Thus, as under Dracon’s or Cleisthenes’ government there was nothing evil concerning you – for you, whom the evil could have concerned, did not exist at all – so not even after death will there be any evil, for you, whom it would concern, will not exist. (Transl. Hershbell 1981, 33, adapted).

(10) IG 2².10073.8–9 [Athens, 2nd/3rd century CE]:
πόσσων δ’ ἦς ἐτέων ὅτ’ ἀπέφθισο τῇδ’ ἐνὶ γαίῃ;
πέμπτῳ κεἰκοστῷ μοῖραν ἔτλην στυγερήν.

– How old were you when you died [and went] into the earth here? – I met my miserable fate in my twenty-fifth [year].

(11) P.Flor. 3.382.13 (= TM 19394) [Moirai, 222/3 CE]: ἑβδομ]ήκοντα ἔτεσιν ἦ̣σ̣θ̣ας ἐν ταῖς πολιτικαῖς λειτουργίαις.

You were in public service for seventy years.

D. General commentary

Phrynichus (A.1) and Moeris (A.2) deal with the 2nd-person singular imperfect of εἰμί, both rejecting the innovative koine formInnovative forms ἦς in favour of the Attic ἦσθα. Phrynichus also takes issue with ἦς from a syntactic perspective, since this form had become homophonousHomophony with the present subjunctive ᾖς due to the loss of /i/ in ‘long diphthongs’; consequently, the use of ἦς, which sounded like a subjunctive, in contexts requiring an (imperfect) indicative would constitute a solecismSolecism, i.e. a syntactical error. The same observation is made in the synonymic lexicon of Herennius Philo/Ammonius (B.3), which may have shared a common source with Phrynichus, possibly from Hellenistic or early imperial scholarship (however, the parenthetical φησίν at the beginning of Herennius’ entry does not necessarily refer to a specific source, as it is often used impersonally: see Palmieri 1988, 82–3). Although Herennius/Ammonius does not explicitly mention the imperfect form ἦς, its diffusion in contemporary spoken Greek is implied by the entry’s reasoning: speakers would have had no plausible reason for confusing an imperfect form with a present subjunctive unless the former had developed a variant that was homophonous with the latter.

While lexicography duly recorded the classical use of ἦσθα for later ἦς (B.4), ἦσθα itself attracted scholars’ interest for a variety of reasons. From a morphological perspective, ancient scholarship (B.1, B.2; cf. schol. rec. Ar. Pl. 869c) explained ἦσθα as derived from ἦς by the addition of -θα, similar to other 2nd-person forms; after ἦσθα fell out of use in spoken Greek, its correct spelling and usage also became a topic of scholarly discussion. An entry in the Etymologicum Genuinum (B.5) attributes to Orus a discussion of the spellings ᾖσθα and ἦσθα, the former of which he identified as both a subjunctive of εἰμί (perhaps due to confusion with the teaching on ᾖς) and a syncopated variant of ἤδεισθα ‘you knew’, although this interpretation was apparently based on a misunderstanding of a Euripidean line (Lentz traced this doctrine back to Herodian on the basis of the abridged entry in the Etymologicum Magnum, but this connection is unlikely; see the apparatus to B.5). A Tzetzes scholium (B.7) argues that, on the contrary, ᾖσθα ‘you were’ should be written with an iota subscript on the analogy of εἶς ‘you are’, but the text of the scholium is problematic, possibly owing to the conflation of two different sources, one dealing with ἦσθα = ἦς, the other with ᾖσθα = ᾖς. Finally, Thomas Magister’s entry (B.8) warns against the use of ἦσθα as a present form, an interpretation arising from the fact that the imperfect of εἰμί is sometimes used in contexts where other languages would use a present (see LSJ, DGE s.v.), in atemporal expressions or with reference to a previous thought (e.g. Ar. Pl. 971). This interpretation may have been further reinforced by classical passages such as Aesch. Th. 1053, where ἦσθ(α) was a corrupt reading for ἴσθ(ι) ‘be!’ (see schol. rec. Ar. Pl. 971b; schol. Aesch. Th. 1053e).

The origins of the two competing forms are discussed by Schwyzer (1939, 677); Chantraine (1961, 293); Sihler (1995, 551). ἦσθα has been explained either as an old perfect (cf. Sanskrit ā́sitha), later absorbed into the imperfect paradigm, or as an imperfect ἦς recharacterised with the perfect ending -θα < *-th₂e, (cf. οἶσθα ‘you know’ < *u̯oid-th₂e). On the other hand, ἦς, if its early attestations are taken as genuine (but see below), could theoretically be the reflex of the inherited imperfect *(e-)h₁es-s (cf. Sanskrit ā́s), displaced by ἦσθα in Homer and Attic. However, ἦς is more likely to be a koine innovation, part of a trend of recharacterising the few 2nd-pers. sing. forms in -θα (the imperfects ἔφησθα ‘you said’, ἤεισθα ‘you went’, the perfect οἶσθα ‘you know’, and the pluperfect ἤδεισθα ‘you knew’) with the more transparent 2nd-pers. sing. secondary active ending -ς (see AGP vol. 1, 305–10).

While ἦσθα is already found in Homer (10x, e.g. C.1, besides ἔησθα [Il. 22.435], modelled on the 3rd pers. sing. ἔην : ἦν) and is the norm in classical Attic literature (e.g. C.3, C.4; see Rutherford 1881, 227) and documentary sources (Threatte 1996, 587; cf. C.10, an imperial-period verse inscription), ἦς first occurs with certainty in the Septuagint, where it is still quite rare (3x, including C.8 + 3x as varia lectio) compared to ἦσθα (17x; see Thackeray 1909, 256). Earlier attestations of ἦς are all doubtful: it only occurs in Anacr. fr. 22 (C.2, where Bergk corrected it to the present εἶς) and in the pseudo-Platonic dialogue Axiochus (C.9), which has been recognised as spurious since antiquity (cf. D.L. 3.62) and is now dated to the late Hellenistic period, and whose language contains several koine features (see Männlein-Robert 2012, 6–7 and Beghini 2020, 19–25 on the dating; Männlein-Robert 2012, 10–3 and Beghini 2020, 24 on the linguistic peculiarities). In C.5, an epigram dubiously attributed to Erinna (Neri 2003, 85–8), ἦς is interpreted by some scholars (Paton 1916, 485–7; Männlein-Robert 2007, 255) as a 2nd-pers. sing. form, but it is more likely the homophonous West Greek 3rd-pers. sing. form (so Neri 2003, 440). Be that as it may, ἦς gradually became common in the koine, as evidenced by its attestations in the Septuagint and the New Testament (6x, twice as frequent as ἦσθα; see Blass, Debrunner 1976, 72), but also in writers such as Josephus (4x) and Plutarch (9x). Although 2nd-person singular forms of the imperfect are unattested in Ptolemaic papyriPapyri (Mayser, Gramm. vol. 1,2.81), ἦς is much more frequent than ἦσθα in Roman and early Byzantine papyri (Gignac 1981, 403).

The complete lack of a classical pedigree explains why Phrynichus (A.1) strongly rejected ἦς; one may contrast this proscription with his relatively milder attitude towards another innovative imperfect form of εἰμί, the 1st pers. sing. ἤμην for classical ἦ(ν), which, as Phrynichus himself admits, was used by some ancient authors (and may indeed have been even more frequent in contemporary copies of classical texts: see entry ἦν, ἦ, ἤμην). The possible confusion with the pres. subj. ᾖς was, as already remarked, an additional reason for avoiding ἦς. On the whole, Atticising authors shared the lexicographers’ rejection of ἦς. Although ἦς occurs once in Philostratus the Elder (Ep. 36.8), Aristides and Aelian only use ἦσθα, and Lucian does so overwhelmingly (23x), albeit with isolated occurrences of ἦς in the compounds παρῆς (DMort. 17.1) and συνῆς (DMort. 11.3), while in Gall. 19.7 and 19.15 the forms συνῆς and ἦς are transmitted as vv.ll. of συνῆσθα and ἦσθα, respectively (see Schmid, Atticismus vol. 1, 230; vol. 4, 599; Deferrari 1916, 60).

The form ἦσθα was subject to other analogical replacements: a variant ἦσθας, recharacterised with the 2nd-pers. sing. ending -ς, is attested at least twice, and probably three times, in Menander (in addition to C.6 and C.7, ἦσθας is a likely reading in Men. Pc. 100), who uses ἦσθα 8x, but is almost absent from documentary sources (the only papyrological occurrence is C.11). In Hom. Il. 5.898 (C.1) a few MSS have ἦσθας, which was arguably introduced to avoid a hiatus (this is the only instance in Homer where ἦσθα occurs before a vowel, and also the only one where a v.l. ἦσθας is transmitted); ἦσθας last occurs in Iulianus in Iob. 251.16–7 Hagedorn, where it replaces ἦς of the Septuagint text. Unlike the variant οἶσθας for οἶσθα ‘you know’ (on which see entry οἶσθα, οἶσθας, οἶδας), which resulted from the same analogical process, it is possible that ἦσθας was created only as a metrically convenient variant of ἦσθα to avoid hiatus (see AGP vol. 1, 308–10). Aelius Dionysius admitted both οἶσθας and ἦσθας according to Eustathius (B.6), who however may have misrepresented Aelius’ views. In any case, οἶσθας may have seemed more acceptable to the Atticists on account of its earlier attestations (going back to Cratin. fr. 112) and because it could be seen as a compromise of sorts between the inherited οἶσθα and the analogical innovation οἶδας (based on 1st pers. sing. οἶδα).

Yet another innovation yielded the 2nd-pers. sing. form ἦσο, provided with the middle secondary -σο ending, in line with a trend that began in the imperfect with 1st pers. sing. ἤμην and ultimately produced a whole present middle paradigm εἶμαι, εἶσαι, etc. In particular, ἦσο, although rarely attested outside grammatical sources (e.g. Heracl.Mil. fr. 53.9 Cohn; Et.Sym. ε 859; schol. Ar. Nu. 705d) and an imperial-period metrical inscription from Phrygia (MAMA 10, App. 1, 187.66.4 [Tiberioupolis]), is thought to have developed, via the intermediate (and scarcely attested) form ἤσου, into the Medieval forms ἤσουν, ἤσουνε, attested since the 13th century and ancestral to Modern Greek ήσουν (see CGMEMG vol. 3, 1732–3). Throughout the Byzantine period, in fact, ἤσουν is the only form found in vernacular texts, even in the higher-register ones (CGMEMG vol. 3, 1732); on the other hand, the more classicising authors use both ἦσθα (e.g. Theodorus Studites 10x; Photius 16x; Arethas 2x; Michael Psellus 10x; Anna Comnene 2x; Nicephorus Basilaces 9x; Michael Choniates 9x; Nicephorus Blemmydes 2x; Nicetas Choniates 11x) and ἦς (Theodorus Studites 42x; Photius 4x; Arethas 2x; Michael Psellus 6x; Nicephorus Basilaces 11x; Michael Choniates 2x). At least in some authors, the choice between the two older forms was guided by euphonicEuphony considerations, with ἦσθα being preferred before a consonant and ἦς before a vowel; such a distribution is evident, for example, in Nicephorus Basilaces (before consonants, only ἦσθα, 8x; before vowels, ἦς 9x and once the elided form ἦσθ’; before pauses, ἦς 2x).

E. Byzantine and Modern Greek commentary

N/A

F. Commentary on individual texts and occurrences

N/A

Bibliography

Alpers, K. (1981). Das attizistische Lexicon des Oros. Untersuchung und kritische Ausgabe. Berlin, New York.

Beghini, A. (2020). [Platone], Assioco. Saggio introduttivo, edizione critica, traduzione e commento a cura di A. Beghini. Baden-Baden.

Blass, F.; Debrunner, A. (1976). Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch. Revised ed. by F. Rehkopf. Göttingen.

Chantraine, P. (1961). Morphologie historique du grec. 2nd edition. Paris.

Deferrari, R. J. (1916). Lucian’s Atticism. The Morphology of the Verb. [PhD Dissertation] Princeton University.

Egenolff, P. (1901). ‘Zu Herodianos Technikos Περὶ μονήρους λέξεως’. RhM 56, 284–303.

Gignac, F. T. (1981). A Grammar of the Greek Papyri of the Roman and Byzantine Times. Vol. 2: Morphology. Milan.

Hershbell, J. P. (1981). Pseudo-Plato. Axiochus. Chico.

Lloyd-Jones, H. (1994). Sophocles. Vol. 1: Ajax. Electra. Oedipus Tyrannus. Edited and translated by Hugh Lloyd-Jones. Cambridge, MA.

Männlein-Robert, I. (2007). ‘Epigrams on Art. Voice and Voicelessness in Ecphrastic Epigram’. Bing, P.; Bruss, J. S. (eds.), Brill’s Companion to Hellenistic Epigram. Down to Philip. Leiden, Boston, 251–71.

Männlein-Robert, I. (2012). ‘Einführung in die Schrift’. Ps.-Platon. Über den Tod. Eingeleitet, übersetzt und mit interpretierenden Essays versehen von Irmgard Männlein-Robert, Oliver Schelske, Michael Erler, Reinhard Feldmeier, Sven Grosse, Achim Lohmar, Heinz-Günther Nesselrath und Uta Poplutz. Tübingen, 3–41.

Murray, A. T. (1924). Homer. Iliad. Vol. 1: Books 1–12. Translated by A. T. Murray. Revised by William F. Wyatt. Cambridge, MA.

Neri, C. (2003). Erinna. Testimonianze e frammenti. Bologna.

Papazeti, A. (2008). Κριτική έκδοση και σχολιασμός του έργου ‘Περὶ μονήρους λέξεως’ του γραμματικού Αἰλίου Ἡρωδιανοῦ (2ος αι. μ. Χ.). [PhD Dissertation] Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

Paton, W. R. (1916). The Greek Anthology. Vol. 1: Books 1–6. Translated by W. R. Paton. Cambridge, MA.

Schwyzer, E. (1939). Griechische Grammatik. Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion. Munich.

Sihler, A. L. (1995). New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. New York

Thackeray, H. (1909). A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek According to the Septuagint. Vol. 1: Introduction, Orthography and Accidence. Cambridge.

Threatte, L. (1996). The Grammar of Attic Inscriptions. Vol. 2: Morphology. Berlin, New York.

Wolff, G. (1846). ‘Zum Etymologicum Magnum’. Philologus 28, 352.

CITE THIS

Roberto Batisti, 'ἦς, ἦσθα, ἦσθας (Phryn. Ecl. 118, Moer. η 4)', in Olga Tribulato (ed.), Digital Encyclopedia of Atticism. With the assistance of E. N. Merisio.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30687/DEA/2974-8240/2025/01/030

ABSTRACT

This article provides a philological and linguistic commentary on the verb forms ἦς, ἦσθα, and ἦσθας discussed in the Atticist lexica Phryn. Ecl. 118, Moer. η 4, Ael.Dion. ο 11 (= Eust. in Od. 2.90.12–3).